We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

I don’t recall saying that men and women are completely equal in all aspects. Additionally, I never said anything about it being sexist to point out that men are different from women physically.
Furthermore, I requested her justification for her views. I could look it up, I suppose, but I would rather see what source you are using. If you believe they will be a liability, point out why. If you believe there is a reasonable cause, argue for it.
As it is, I feel like you’re leaving out details simply to trap me in a claim.

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338890):***
>
> Vika, that is so much hooey. All of the men I know who have divorced don’t get the kids (except one) and the woman usually gets the gold mine, while the man gets the shaft.
The very fact that one got the kids over the mother of the relationship does actually show you gender equality in action. The judge is considering the _worthiness of each parent_ in assigning custody of the children, and assigning them thus.
If the men you know are of dubious moral fiber then I would frankly expect a similar result. That the woman’s claim to the children is dismissed in some cases is evidence of advancement away from the old view of always giving them to the mother.
* * *
> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338838):***
>
> If a group is expected to be treated equally, then they should also accept the bad things that come from being equal.
Absolutely. That is all part of equality.

Why, yes, women should be allowed to join the army. Whether they should be drafted is an entirely different matter, as it involves certain procedures that check if you are capable of being a good soldier (roughly speaking). We all know a soldier needs physical strength: carrying heavy bags, confront an enemy in melee, do menial jobs like building a bunker. We all know men are generally stronger than women. So, we know that, generally, it is more likely a man is capable than a woman. It costs to check up on every person, so we should define the maximum amount of failures in check-ups (per 100 or so) so that we won’t have more costs than needed. If we find that checking up women means we cross that line, it would probably best not to draft them, but to interest them instead.

> Whether they should be drafted is an entirely different matter,
Why? Equality isn’t just giving them the most favorable conditions. I mean, men don’t generally get much in the way of physical questions when it comes to the draft, why should women?
> as it involves certain procedures that check if you are capable of being a good soldier (roughly speaking).
Selected service doesn’t really involve much more depth than “do you have any crazy illnesses that will make you more trouble than you’re worth to the army?”

> *Originally posted by **[onlineidiot1994](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6345753):***
> > Whether they should be drafted is an entirely different matter,
>
> Why? Equality isn’t just giving them the most favorable conditions. I mean, men don’t generally get much in the way of physical questions when it comes to the draft, why should women?
We shouldn’t. No matter what your physical capability, there is always work for you to do. Even if you have a disability, your presence frees up an able bodied individual from support to combat.

> *Originally posted by **[GlowPro](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6350547):***
>
> The reason they don’t is because… If she is hurt and a man is hurt also men are most likely to go for the women :)
Realistically, they’ll go for the most injured, or most exposed first. Regardless of the gender of the soldier.

On this topic, I’d like to put out this video to add to the discussion (please excuse that it’s Fox News, it’s still an interesting perspective):
[http://video.foxnews.com/v/1821296256001/](http://video.foxnews.com/v/1821296256001/)
My take:
I would say that when things start getting into the really intense zone—i.e. Seal Training, Marine Corp infantry—that is is perhaps best suited for the strongest of men. When it comes down to the day to day operations of the military, there is little to no difference (based on my experience) in the prowess of men over women. Overall, agree with her.

^pretty interesting. (though i am still furious about the auto-play playing the next video without my consent)
raises the point that if there is any lowering of the bar for admission for females it’s gonna hold back the rest and cause greater casualties among female soldiers.
whenever female soldiers are allowed, be sure that all of them are up to par and actually _can_ do everything the males can. (and none of that females are just as nonsense, that’s just not true. you carry a womb with you.)

Women are still capable of fighting even when they’re on their periods. It doesn’t make us suddenly drop dead when it happens. If you suffer period problems that would leave you unable to do anything for the duration, I doubt you would be fit enough to join the Army anyway.

The reason Women aren’t “allowed” to be in the front lines like that is because of mental issues such as PTSD. I’m sure you all heard of people getting it. Well the thing with women is that they will come back home and continue raising their children, if they have any. Basically in nutshell they don’t want women getting fucked up mentally from war then coming back and taking care of their children in that condition…yeah..

> Equality isn’t just giving them the most favorable conditions.
I explicitly explained why this is beyond “equality”, so this sounds just like a short jab.
> Selected service doesn’t really involve much more depth than “do you have any crazy illnesses that will make you more trouble than you’re worth to the army?”
Might depend on the country, though I only heard from my family’s experience (which was further in the past, of course). My father’s brothers were both rejected and weren’t supposedly “crazily ill”.
Just have to note again that I’m not against women in the army, but I was merely suggesting a possible reason for not drafting women.
> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6350557):***
> > *Originally posted by **[GlowPro](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6350547):***
> >
> > The reason they don’t is because… If she is hurt and a man is hurt also men are most likely to go for the women :)
>
> Realistically, they’ll go for the most injured, or most exposed first. Regardless of the gender of the soldier.
Do I have such a twisted view of war in thinking that one should go for the uninjured soldiers first? I mean, a man with his leg blown off is less of a danger than a guy unloading his machinegun’s ammo on you.

> Do I have such a twisted view of war in thinking that one should go for the uninjured soldiers first? I mean, a man with his leg blown off is less of a danger than a guy unloading his machinegun’s ammo on you.
I think they mean “go for” as in medical retrieval.
It’s the only context that makes sense to me.

i have to point out the following:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Army\_Physical\_Fitness\_Test#Standards](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test#Standards)
look at the 2 mile run requirements.

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6354939):***
> > Do I have such a twisted view of war in thinking that one should go for the uninjured soldiers first? I mean, a man with his leg blown off is less of a danger than a guy unloading his machinegun’s ammo on you.
>
> I think they mean “go for” as in medical retrieval.
>
> It’s the only context that makes sense to me.
I did, yes. It was in rebuttal to an earlier argument that someone made, in that if two soldiers were injured, the other soldiers would always rescue the female first. That’s simply not the case.
You do an on-site assessment of the danger to each individual, and rescue the one in the most critical condition as a priority, if you can.

> *Originally posted by **[Piple](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6354779):***
>
> The reason Women aren’t “allowed” to be in the front lines like that is because of mental issues such as PTSD. I’m sure you all heard of people getting it. Well the thing with women is that they will come back home and continue raising their children, if they have any. Basically in nutshell they don’t want women getting fucked up mentally from war then coming back and taking care of their children in that condition…yeah..
And men don’t have children that they would have to take care of?

> *Originally posted by **[jaconater](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6358413):***
>
> I think that the reality of the issue is that men are hardwired for war while usually women are not.
Yeah, I’m going to call bullshit on that.
> Obviously there are some exceptions but there is a reason that most front line fighters are men.
And what exaclty says that what you’re saying is true?

> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6339409):***
> > *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338890):***
> >
> > Vika, that is so much hooey. All of the men I know who have divorced don’t get the kids (except one) and the woman usually gets the gold mine, while the man gets the shaft.
>
> The very fact that one got the kids over the mother of the relationship does actually show you gender equality in action. The judge is considering the _worthiness of each parent_ in assigning custody of the children, and assigning them thus.
>
> If the men you know are of dubious moral fiber then I would frankly expect a similar result. That the woman’s claim to the children is dismissed in some cases is evidence of advancement away from the old view of always giving them to the mother.
>
> * * *
> > *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=20#posts-6338838):***
> >
> > If a group is expected to be treated equally, then they should also accept the bad things that come from being equal.
>
> Absolutely. That is all part of equality.
Wow! You have been out of the country for a while, huh? The women usually get the children. the one guy I know got his children because his wife found a boyfriend and left him with the children so they wouldn’t interfere with her new association. I actually think they are better off with their dad anyway. It is not always the men who decide to end a marriage, but the way the courts work they tend to think the kids are better with a woman’s touch.
Have you ever heard of alimony? Several states have this and it is supposed to help the woman get education and a back on their feet. It is an outdated law as so many women have careers nowadays.

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/18534?page=21#posts-6362727):***
>
> Wow! You have been out of the country for a while, huh? The women usually get the children. the one guy I know got his children because his wife found a boyfriend and left him with the children so they wouldn’t interfere with her new association.
Then those men need to fight harder for their rights. The courts may be expressing gender bias, and that both can and should be challenged.
> I actually think they are better off with their dad anyway.
No argument from me there. It is not the gender of the parent that determines whether or notthey are a good parent.
> It is not always the men who decide to end a marriage
That’s a blindingly obvious statement.
> but the way the courts work they tend to think the kids are better with a woman’s touch.
No they don’t. The law is gender neutral. If the judge does not see it that way, have your lawyer remind that judge of what the law actually says. Otherwise we need to work those judges out of the system as they are letting their personal biases determine their rulings – they are unfit to judge.
> Have you ever heard of alimony? Several states have this and it is supposed to help the woman get education and a back on their feet. It is an outdated law as so many women have careers nowadays.
Many != All. Alimony is to help pay for the children’s care. Men **and women** should be paying it, based on their ex-partner’s need to provide for the kids.

i can’t help but agree stongly with jhco on this one.
> Then those men need to fight harder for their rights. The courts may be expressing gender bias, and that both can and should be challenged.
so what do you do about that? take them to court? lol. there’s nothing you can do.
it has been a known fact for decades, but the only “feminists” to oppose this are feminists that word it in such a way, that women once again are worded as victims. but for the most part there’s this image of men are bad, women are good, that can’t be competed with. what, you really expect that men can unite and call out these women as covering for eachother and such, without being called misogynists? lol!
> > It is not always the men who decide to end a marriage
>
> That’s a blindingly obvious statement.
you’d be surprised how often the default position is that either the man left by his own choice, or the woman was forced toleave him because the man didn’t treat her right.
> No they don’t. The law is gender neutral. If the judge does not see it that way, have your lawyer remind that judge of what the law actually says. Otherwise we need to work those judges out of the system as they are letting their personal biases determine their rulings – they are unfit to judge.
the law may be gender neutral, but the perception of the situation brought for the law won’t be. and how do you suggest those judges are worked out of the system? again, anyone trying to do that would be labeled a misogynist evil man.
> Many != All. Alimony is to help pay for the children’s care. Men and women should be paying it, based on their ex-partner’s need to provide for the kids.
don’t Americans use alimony for money payed directly to an ex-wife regardless of children, while they use “child-support” for men paying for children living with their mother?
and again, even if a father would have the children, try demanding such child-support from the mother without everyone thinking of you as some bad parasite. while reversed…

I am surprised such a topic like this one is still alive in this forum. Of course they should. Disagreeing on this topic is sexist to both genders, in particular women. But hmm, me expecting no sexism from a gaming website where a vast majority of the populace is composed of teenage boys? Maybe I am a bit too optimistic sometimes.